The Populist Anger
If having a charming Liberal Prime Minister still allowed Canadians to watch the US election in a light mood a few months ago, the recent shock in response to the Brexit vote should feel very real. We cannot win this globalization debate by empathizing how “uneducated” the other side is; the very mechanism of democracy has enabled populism to reshape politics, the consequence of which none of us can escape. Navigating the changing political landscapes with both sides’ concerns in mind would be our best bet.
Restructuring politics
An interesting metaphor from John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight video on the Democratic National Convention was stepping on one needle versus too many needles altogether: Trump could get away with a million appalling remarks, each one of which would have ended any normal politician’s career. The countless offensive comments, on the contrary, built him a unique image as shaking up traditional politics and confronting the establishment. Shocked as mainstream media outlets are, Trump supporters could not care less about the conventional lines and framework in which politicians and political parties are supposed to operate.
Prominent Republican figures failed to show up to in Cleveland; some former big Republican donors have endorsed Hillary Clinton; and the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, is enjoying increasing popularity as the alternative for Republicans. The Republican Party, as well as the American political landscape, is changing. Similar changes as a result of populist anti-globalization sentiments are not rare elsewhere. In the UK, the Eurosceptic UKIP has just fulfilled their mandate; the popularity of Greece’s Golden Dawn is no news; the anti-EU, anti-Muslim Party for Freedom (PVV) has become the third largest party in the Netherlands; Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far-right nationalist party, National Front, is now twice as popular as President Hollande from the Socialist Party.
Traditionally, the working class, presumably the least content with the loss of jobs to foreign competition, have been represented by left-leaning socialist parties, who support unionization, progressive taxation, and generous spending on job-creation projects. Centre-left parties, however, are failing to connect to their working-class electorate. In the UK, the Labour Party is experiencing internal conflicts between the conventional pro-workers’ rights Jeremy Corbyn, and politicians who wholehearted support the EU. In the Brexit referendum, traditional Labour-dominated constituencies did not follow their party’s official call to vote Stay.
Similarly in the US, mainstream Democrats are increasingly eager to appeal to the rising coastal elites and arguably the Wall Street financial institutions that facilitated their growth. Created by the tech boom and globalization, coastal elites are characterized as cosmopolitan, mildly progressive, and very different from older business tycoons from the traditional energy and infrastructure sectors. This also explains the popularity of Bernie Sanders, whose anti-establishment rhetoric captured the less privileged, liberal-minded voters.
These major shake-ups in Western political systems have prompted some rethinking of how we define politics and representation. Politics used to fall very neatly into a left-right categorization, the left being liberal values and progressiveness for social equality, and the right being social conservatism and formal equality preserved by a small government. Such a simple spectrum no longer seems sufficient to capture political interests and stances. France’s young economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, is amassing incredible support for “En Marche”, a political movement neither left or right. He observes a “new political divide” that is between embracing and rejecting globalization. This movement is envisioned to confront populist nationalism with positive messages and changes that benefit the wider population. Inexperienced and undeveloped as it seems for now, the movement reflects the need for a nuanced response to the rising anti-globalization populism, instead of brushing it away as simply uneducated and racist.
The assumption of rationality
Gone are the days when politicians could convince their constituencies with “scientific facts” and “expert opinions”. We despise populism because angry masses possess no rational thought. But angry masses don’t play the rational, statistical game with elites to begin with. The Brexit vote was a slap in the face for politicians and investors alike who had confidence in the public’s ability to make the “right decision”. Experts have told them repeatedly that Brexit would hurt the economy. It was also no secret that the Leave campaign’s pledge of £350m for NHS was flawed. But we have underestimated the price frustrated Brits are willing to pay to make a political statement.
An article from The Atlantic explained the psychology behind voting against even one’s own best interest: in order to drag down the winners and regain a sense of control, angry losers don’t mind making the entire game worse even for themselves. Voting psychology as such becomes a huge irony of democracy. The assumption behind an election or referendum is that individuals make rational, self-serving decisions, and will thus collectively make a choice that benefits as many as possible. The rise of populism proves this assumption wrong.
What has also been considered “rational” by elites and their experts, is the acceptance of immigrants and the recognition of the economic benefits of freedom of movement. After all, the idea of EU integration or globalization is to allow labour, as well as goods, services and technology, to move where the economy needs them. It should all be about the market and growth. All it should take to convince people to welcome immigrants is to say these fellow humans suffer in their home countries and deserve to thrive with their talents and hard work.
But such rationale and morality does not apply any more when working-class whites themselves are losing financial security and racial privileges. When the Leave campaign promised a selective immigration control system to replace the unconditional acceptance of EU citizens, it was not hard to foresee Leave’s popularity.
Racism and inward nationalism regains momentum as the result of the unevenness of globalization. To think that all economic and social groups reason in the same way and subscribe into the same type of “rationality” is naive; and to dismiss anti-immigration populism as merely immoral and racist is a very misguided approach for any politician.
Navigating the politics of (anti-)globalization
There is, however, no simple solution to the rise of anti-globalization and populism. It is not a traditional liberal vs. conservative battleground like taxation or abortion. Almost all existing political institutions, domestically and internationally, can be labeled as puppets of the establishment elites and therefore have limited credibility among these angered voters.
Yet some smart moves can be made by individual politicians. The new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, welcomed the acquisition of the British chipmaker, ARM Holdings, by Japan’s Softbank, with the catch being Softbank’s promise to create jobs for locals. On a broader level, however, Ms. May has hinted on “proper industrial strategy”, an interventionist approach traditionally deemed unsuitable for the open market economy.
Confusing as it seems, not taking a black-and-white clear stance is sometimes very necessary. Consistently siding with the working class like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders proves to be admirable but hardly worthy of imitation; but no politician, in the face of rising populism, can pretend that deals like TPP or TTIP can be easily signed behind closed doors. Complex issues require complex stances and solutions; not to mention successful political leadership requires negotiating and navigating between conflicting interests.
Similarly, if Hillary Clinton wants to win support from the disgruntled working class, she needs to do more than flashing her perfect resume. But we should have faith that she can transfer her diplomatic skills as Secretary of State, and her ability to adapt to evolving narratives as she did on the Iraq War and same-sex marriage. The last thing we want is Mr. Trump using four years of presidency to further divide America and reverse globalization.
